Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Truth in Legislating

The Indiana legislature recently tried to push through an amendment to the state constitution: the Defense of Marriage Amendment. The amendment died in committee of procedural causes, but its original sponsors have made it clear that they will be trying again during the next legislative session. I like the idea of official government-sanctioned relationships; who wouldn't like the most intimate details of their lives being subject to government approval and regulation? However, I noticed that the contents of the amendment fall short of the promise of its name. The amendment reads as follows:
Section 38. (a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
This doesn't seem like it does very much to Defend Marriage. I would like to propose an addition, to read:
(c) No person who has ever been divorced, who has ever been a party to an annulled marriage, or who has ever been proven to have committed adultery, shall be eligible to hold any elected or appointed government office.
I think I'll propose this to State Representative Eric Turner, who authored the original amendment. As "Defending Marriage" is his stated goal, I think my addendum would move him a good deal further along that path than the current wording. Barring that, I would like to request that he change the name of the amendment to something that more accurately reflects the amendment's origins and popular appeal: The "Queers Make Me A Mite Uncomfortable" Amendment.

I would also like to propose to Rep. Turner an addendum which sets a minimum annual quota for oral sex between marriage partners, but this might get complex -- there would need to be reasonable exemptions for health, disability, and hygiene, and negotiating the particulars would likely get bogged down in conference committees.

1 comment:

Jennifer B. said...

Minimal annual quota for oral sex between marriage partners - hmm ... but that's not missionary position sex, and therefore should be OUTLAWED. Don't you know that is as bad as sodomy? How dare you suggest a married couple should have sex in any position but missionary.

(sigh) I'm really hating all these bills going through various state houses and senates to try and restrict marriage to woman/man. People are so scared of what they don't understand. :(